Good factual documentary on wolves

[Okhotnik]

What are you basing that assumption on?

His emotions

 

[Ratbeetle]

Not much - perhaps I should have said "guessing". Just seems such a large number, that it would be due to a combination of predation, emigration, winter-kill, etc. But I really have no idea.

You seem to make a lot of assumptions for someone who has admitted (several times) to have no real knowledge of this subject. It's almost like you have an agenda.

I'm curious what brought about your interest in hunting, since you just started last year.

 

[Okhotnik]

You seem to make a lot of assumptions for someone who has admitted (several times) to have no real knowledge of this subject. It's almost like you have an agenda.

I'm curious what brought about your interest in hunting, since you just started last year.

He’s a clown who’s just trolling hunters

 

[RCB]

You seem to make a lot of assumptions for someone who has admitted (several times) to have no real knowledge of this subject. It's almost like you have an agenda.

I'm curious what brought about your interest in hunting, since you just started last year.

I assure you I have no agenda. Not that it should matter to you (or anyone) what my opinion is, but, e.g., I have no firm opinion on whether wolves should be introduced to CO (the state I live in) - though I would lean against it, solely on skeptical grounds (don't fix what ain't broken, and so on).

You were right to point out that my assumption was, perhaps, ill-founded (though no one has demonstrated it false). I admitted to it. Have I been unreasonable? I have asked questions of people intending to learn. All except one have been polite in return.

My interest in hunting is sort of irrelevant to the topic (and presumably you bring it up because you have been looking up my past posts?), but, briefly, I became interested in it as a challenging form of outdoor recreation and source of good food. I intend to keep doing it.

 

[RCB]

Obvious based on your multiple posts using platitudes that your mind is already made up and have no real interest on wolves’ impact on moose deer and elk and do not want to hear anything negative about wolves in which you have no real world experience.

Go back and read my first reply to this thread. I mentioned negative effects of wolves in that very post. I have also mentioned throughout that I believe that they reduce ungulate populations. In return, you have mostly just called me a clown. I may well be wrong, but to accuse me of having "no real interest" and not having an open mind is unfounded.

 

[Ratbeetle]

I assure you I have no agenda. Not that it should matter to you (or anyone) what my opinion is, but, e.g., I have no firm opinion on whether wolves should be introduced to CO, where I live - though I would lean against it, solely on skeptical grounds (don't fix what ain't broken, and so on).

You were right to point out that my assumption was, perhaps, ill-founded (though no one has demonstrated it false). I admitted to it. Have I been unreasonable? I have asked questions of people intending to learn. All except one have been polite in return.

My interest in hunting is sort of irrelevant to the topic (and presumably you bring it up because you have been looking up my past posts?), but, briefly, I became interested in it as a challenging form of outdoor recreation and source of good food. I intend to keep doing it.

I don't find it irrelevant at all. Not that you necessarily are one, but I find the new breed of "ohhhh organic meat" hunters to be nothing more than yesterday's tree huggers in fancy camo. I have found that their feelings regarding hunting don't typically align with the guys who view hunting as more than a glorified "farm to table" activity and that many have an I can take it or leave it attitude. If hunting went away tomorrow due to excessive wolf predation, they'd just go back to trail running and cruising farmers markets. I don't think adding them to the ranks bodes well for the future of hunting, but many insist that we need every warm body we can get. I guess time will tell.

Maybe I'm way off base, but your posts in this thread strike me as having a bit of that attitude.

Looking at past posts is helpful in knowing if someone is speaking from a place of knowledge and experience or just talking out of their ass.

Unreasonable, no. Incredibly dense, yes.

 

[Pro953]

He’s a clown who’s just trolling hunters

I certainly have no skin in this thread. But you sir are the one behaving like the troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Okhotnik]

I certainly have no skin in this thread. But you sir are the one behaving like the troll.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An anti hunting pro wolf troll from kkkalifornia. Not surprised

 

[Okhotnik]

I don't find it irrelevant at all. Not that you necessarily are one, but I find the new breed of "ohhhh organic meat" hunters to be nothing more than yesterday's tree huggers in fancy camo. I have found that their feelings regarding hunting don't typically align with the guys who view hunting as more than a glorified "farm to table" activity and that many have an I can take it or leave it attitude. If hunting went away tomorrow due to excessive wolf predation, they'd just go back to trail running and cruising farmers markets. I don't think adding them to the ranks bodes well for the future of hunting, but many insist that we need every warm body we can get. I guess time will tell.

Maybe I'm way off base, but your posts in this thread strike me as having a bit of that attitude.

Looking at past posts is helpful in knowing if someone is speaking from a place of knowledge and experience or just talking out of their ass.

Unreasonable, no. Incredibly dense, yes.

Wasting your time

 

[Okhotnik]

I assure you I have no agenda. Not that it should matter to you (or anyone) what my opinion is, but, e.g., I have no firm opinion on whether wolves should be introduced to CO (the state I live in) - though I would lean against it, solely on skeptical grounds (don't fix what ain't broken, and so on).

You were right to point out that my assumption was, perhaps, ill-founded (though no one has demonstrated it false). I admitted to it. Have I been unreasonable? I have asked questions of people intending to learn. All except one have been polite in return.

My interest in hunting is sort of irrelevant to the topic (and presumably you bring it up because you have been looking up my past posts?), but, briefly, I became interested in it as a challenging form of outdoor recreation and source of good food. I intend to keep doing it.

As I stated an anti hunter trolling Rokslide

 

[RCB]

I don't find it irrelevant at all. Not that you necessarily are one, but I find the new breed of "ohhhh organic meat" hunters to be nothing more than yesterday's tree huggers in fancy camo. I have found that their feelings regarding hunting don't typically align with the guys who view hunting as more than a glorified "farm to table" activity and that many have an I can take it or leave it attitude. If hunting went away tomorrow due to excessive wolf predation, they'd just go back to trail running and cruising farmers markets. I don't think adding them to the ranks bodes well for the future of hunting, but many insist that we need every warm body we can get. I guess time will tell.

Maybe I'm way off base, but your posts in this thread strike me as having a bit of that attitude.

Looking at past posts is helpful in knowing if someone is speaking from a place of knowledge and experience or just talking out of their ass.

Unreasonable, no. Incredibly dense, yes.

I’m not that type of person. I do think that person has just as much right to hunt as any other American. Regardless, whatever the truth is about wolves (which I do not pretend to possess), it doesn’t depend on my personality. That’s what I meant by the “irrelevant” claim, for what it’s worth.

What have I said that is “incredibly dense”? I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. I said that wolves prey on and stress livestock, and thereby hurt ranchers’ livelihoods. That they reduce but probably not eradicate ungulate populations (and someone with whom I was discussing this agreed on that point). That they also cause game to emigrate out of area due to predation pressure. Tell me exactly what I am wrong about, with sincerity. I would appreciate it.

 

[Okhotnik]

Go back and read my first reply to this thread. I mentioned negative effects of wolves in that very post. I have also mentioned throughout that I believe that they reduce ungulate populations. In return, you have mostly just called me a clown. I may well be wrong, but to accuse me of having "no real interest" and not having an open mind is unfounded.

Go to your local farmers market and hunt organic carbon neutral kale

Much safer imo

 

[Ratbeetle]

I’m not that type of person. I do think that person has just as much right to hunt as any other American. Regardless, whatever the truth is about wolves (which I do not pretend to possess), it doesn’t depend on my personality. That’s what I meant by the “irrelevant” claim, for what it’s worth.

What have I said that is “incredibly dense”? I don’t think that’s a fair assessment. I said that wolves prey on and stress livestock, and thereby hurt ranchers’ livelihoods. That they reduce but probably not eradicate ungulate populations (and someone with whom I was discussing this agreed on that point). That they also cause game to emigrate out of area due to predation pressure. Tell me exactly what I am wrong about, with sincerity. I would appreciate it.

Of course that person has a right to hunt, I'm just not going to try to recruit them. 10,000 Charles Posts would be a nightmare for the future of hunting.

Dense in that you acknowledge that wolves prey on ungulates but seem to genuinely doubt that wolves have a serious adverse effect on their populations. That isn't really up for debate. People with actual experience in those areas with heavy wolf predation will tell you that.

 

[RCB]

Of course that person has a right to hunt, I'm just not going to try to recruit them. 10,000 Charles Posts would be a nightmare for the future of hunting.

Dense in that you acknowledge that wolves prey on ungulates but seem to genuinely doubt that wolves have a serious adverse effect on their populations. That isn't really up for debate. People with actual experience in those areas with heavy wolf predation will tell you that.

By “serious adverse” effects I presume you mean that it would greatly reduce the population? Sure, I buy that. I never meant to claim otherwise, but apologize if I was unclear. I only expressed skepticism that they would completely eradicate ungulates from a large area. But sure - greatly reduce population, such that hunting tags have to drop a lot. I could buy that. I haven’t seen the numbers (haven’t looked) but I’ll look around. And listen to any first hand experience.

 

[Okhotnik]

Of course that person has a right to hunt, I'm just not going to try to recruit them. 10,000 Charles Posts would be a nightmare for the future of hunting.

Dense in that you acknowledge that wolves prey on ungulates but seem to genuinely doubt that wolves have a serious adverse effect on their populations. That isn't really up for debate. People with actual experience in those areas with heavy wolf predation will tell you that.

my thoughts exactctly

Charles Post, an anti hunting anti gun progressive liberal, grew up in San Francisco with no hunting fishing hereitage and moved to Montana a few years ago to produce a money making scam. He took photos of domesticated deer, buffalo, bear in Montana and posted on his instagram as he was a great wildlife photographer and created a fake Wild West persona . ( I have a few friends in Montana who are real wildlife photographers and hate the likes of fake Post) He also tried to create a new and Improved progressive hunter image, like our troller

Thousands of urban dwellers, like our troller and sitka gear , bought into his instagram bs. Thank God sitka canned him

 

[Ratbeetle]

By “serious adverse” effects I presume you mean that it would greatly reduce the population? Sure, I buy that. I never meant to claim otherwise, but apologize if I was unclear. I only expressed skepticism that they would completely eradicate ungulates from a large area. But sure - greatly reduce population, such that hunting tags have to drop a lot. I could buy that. I haven’t seen the numbers (haven’t looked) but I’ll look around. And listen to any first hand experience.

Yes, reduce the populations to a point that hunting is greatly diminished. The wolf is just another tool of the antis to ban hunting.

Introduce wolves and then tie up the state game agencies in court when they want to actually manage them. Lawsuit after lawsuit while the wolf population runs unchecked on ungulates and drives down game animal populations to a point where hunting is no longer viable.

All hunters should oppose wolf reintroduction if they care about the long term viability of our big game resources.

 

[Okhotnik]

Yes, reduce the populations to a point that hunting is greatly diminished. The wolf is just another tool of the antis to ban hunting.

Introduce wolves and then tie up the state game agencies in court when they want to actually manage them. Lawsuit after lawsuit while the wolf population runs unchecked on ungulates and drives down game animal populations to a point where hunting is no longer viable.

All hunters should oppose wolf reintroduction if they care about the long term viability of our big game resources.

Again you're wasting your time as RCB is an anti hunting troll

 

[RCB]

Tha

Yes, reduce the populations to a point that hunting is greatly diminished. The wolf is just another tool of the antis to ban hunting.

Introduce wolves and then tie up the state game agencies in court when they want to actually manage them. Lawsuit after lawsuit while the wolf population runs unchecked on ungulates and drives down game animal populations to a point where hunting is no longer viable.

All hunters should oppose wolf reintroduction if they care about the long term viability of our big game resources.

Thanks for sharing. I’m sure it’s possible. It would be a long process (many decades) in a state like Colorado that currently has no wolves. Still skeptical it would be as catastrophic as you say, but that doesn’t mean I think you’re wrong. Time will tell in the other states.

 

[KurtR]

Time has already told the story has it not?

 

[RCB]

Time has already told the story has it not?

I’m not sure. I’m sure others know better, but my impression is that the long term effect of wolves on large ranging ungulate populations is still uncertain?

Certainly we know they will reduce them. In some local areas, a lot. Elk in the Yellowstone area are still like <1/3 of their size at time of introduction, and dropped well below that years ago I believe. They seem to be slowly growing or stabilizing over the last 10 years or so, if I understand correctly.

Do they pose a major threat to hunting? In the long term, I don’t think anyone knows for sure. It’s possible. But consider the growth of wolves in western Montana since the early 2000s. They’ve grown from less than 100 to over 650 in that time, with packs ranging the whole western region. Has elk hunting declined catastrophically since then? On the whole, No. Looking at the harvest numbers back to 2004 (as far as I could find in MT game and fish site) , they’ve been effectively stable, with some ups and downs. 2017 was actually the best year of the bunch: 30k elk harvested as compared to 23k in 2004. Those are statewide numbers. I’m sure some local areas are seeing declines, but on the whole elk hunting in MT seems to be doing just fine. So far.

To repeat, This doesn’t mean I think wolves have no effect. That would be silly. Perhaps as wolves continue to spread in western MT we will see a long term decline in hunter harvest. Maybe even drastically. I grant that possibility. But I think it’s uncertain.

Do share any disagreements.